There are an infinite amount of reasons why women get aggravated, and should, by men. This is not about sexual assault or any number of incredibly important issues this is about men’s overall attitudes. This is about the common everyday obstacles women face in a men’s world.

I thought about this today because:

<1> I saw these two gifs posted, and

<2> it reminds me how stupid condescending sexist assholes like this make my Life more difficult, and

<3> it reminds me how far we still have to go with regard to some fairly stupid masculine attitudes, and

<4> because I do think far too many guys don’t think about gender equality/inequality enough nor do they think about it thru a woman’s eyes <as best they can> if they do think about it … every guy should read the following from For the Men Who Still Don’t Get It<Carol Diehl> and just take a minute to reflect upon it:

“What if
all women were bigger and stronger than you
And thought they were smarter

What if
women were the ones who started wars

What if
too many of your friends had been raped by women wielding giant dildos
and no K-Y Jelly

What if
the state trooper
who pulled you over on the New Jersey Turnpike
was a woman
and carried a gun

What if
the ability to menstruate
was the prerequisite for most high-paying jobs

What if
your attractiveness to women depended
on the size of your penis

What if
every time women saw you
they’d hoot and make jerking motions with their hands

What if
women were always making jokes
about how ugly penises are
and how bad sperm tastes

What if
you had to explain what’s wrong with your car
to big sweaty women with greasy hands
who stared at your crotch
In a garage where you are surrounded
by posters of naked men with hard-ons

What if
men’s magazines featured cover photos
of 14-year-old boys
with socks
tucked into the front of their jeans
and articles like:
“How to tell if your wife is unfaithful”
or
“What your doctor won’t tell you about your prostate”
or
“The truth about impotence”

What if
the doctor who examined your prostate
was a woman
and called you “Honey”

What if
you had to inhale your boss’s stale cigar breath
as she insisted that sleeping with her
was part of the job

What if
You couldn’t get away because
the company dress code required
you wear shoes
designed to keep you from running

…… just think about it ………

And what if
after all that
women still wanted you
to love them.

–

For the Men Who Still Don’t Get It – Carol Diehl

We live in a world in which no matter how much we men suggest it is ‘getting fairer’ for women and we men are becoming ‘more enlightened’ with regard to the issues most men are just fucking clueless.

I know this post will not change 80% of men or even make a dent in the issue, however, it should serve as a reminder to the 20% of men who “get it” that we should stand up, speak out and, well, make sure we get the hell out of the way of the women who are smarter & better than us.

“Because sometimes you have to do something bad to do something good.”

—

Oscar Wilde

==================

Curiosity can be a cruel friend on occasion.

Ok.

I imagine I could say that being curious is a cruel gift. The curious are always on a trajectory of … well … more. It is difficult to ever attain “enough” if you are curious. This is different than unlearning this is actually just about insatiable learning. Each step never begets a desire to rest but rather to take another step toward some unseen horizon. This comes at a cost.

I share this graph I drew because most curious people do not always assess any consequential cost-benefit analysis when embracing this seemingly infinite abyss <or, more positively, a well> of curiosity.

It doesn’t really matter if your curiosity drags you down the more shallow slope of surface breadth of tantalizing “one learning begets a path to another learning” or the more focused depth of “how much can I learn about this” … the temptation of curiosity is more often cruel than it is pleasant.

This means curiosity goes where it may … even if the outcome is harmful, useless or endless. This also means the curious, in a cruel twist of fate, are often treated as ‘ignorant’ of what is important with regard to using their time <this happens often in aa business world of “measurement of doing not thinking“>.

Even with all that cruelty … suffice it to say people, in general, have a tendency to go above and beyond but the curious are almost addicted to the above & beyond. This seemingly instinctual urge to gain information we don’t really need is extraneous — and at its most extreme, dangerous.

Dangerous? Well … yeah.

If you think about it, having an overactive curiosity muscle is almost counter intuitive to evolutionary theory, i.e., the most curious among us should’ve been killed off pretty quickly. And, yet, curiosity has survived, people have survived and the undeniable drive to actively pursue “above & beyond’ survives.

That doesn’t mean it is any less cruel … just that it permits survival.

The other cruel aspect of curiosity is its uncomfortably close relationship with ignorance. Theoretically curiosity exists to remove ignorance. Far be it from me to point out that if your curiosity is never completely sated then ignorance remains, exists and is most likely bigger than ever before.

Oh.

I did point that out.

Cruelty … plain cruelty.

I imagine someone could embrace ignorance and avoid the cruel aspects of curiosity although I would suggest a closed mind actually expands ignorance. And as ignorance expands … within that growing emptiness … I would imagine at some point someone is going to be tempted to know what lightning was, what the stars were, how something can be done better, done faster or just done, or even why someone got sick and someone got better … or whatever temptation may arise within ignorance?

Temptation is temptation.

Ah.

The thorns of curiosity. The cruelty of curiosity has never stopped the curious even despite the fact that most of the curious are not particularly good at assessing long term consequences nor are they particularly good at assessing the cost/benefit analysis.

In July 2016 The Scientific American magazine published an article called — Curiosity Is Not Intrinsically Good <The human drive to resolve uncertainty is so strong that people will look for answers even when it’s obvious those answers will be painful>. I would point out that does not mean curiosity is not good just that if you do not manage your curiosity well … that s not good.

Look.

Curiosity may be cruel. Curious people may suck at cost benefit analysis, assessing consequences of their curious time investment and gathering useful information versus useless information … but sometimes you have to do something bad to do something good.

As with everything else in Life … the best of the curious learn to manage their addiction. They learn to balance the depth versus the breadth, the time invested versus the return on their investment and while they know that their curiosity can be cruel at times … they just learn to carry some band aids for the times they prick their fingers on the inevitable thorns.

I still believe we, as a society, would be a much healthier society if we handed out band aids and encouraged more curiosity rather than curb curiosity by suggesting it is most useful to ‘the dreamers.’ In fact … back in July 2010 I even suggested a “National Program to Support Childhood Curiosity” directed toward kids <with Curiosity Fulfillment teachers>. I still believe this would be a better initiative than most of the more focused, but misguided, initiatives it seems like we craft for our children these days.

Regardless. Curiosity can be a cruel gift … but a gift nonetheless.

===================

“To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.”

“We’re in a world now where it’s not enough to be smart. You have to be curious. Curiosity is rare. That level of intelligence is rare. Probably the further up in a business you are, the less intelligent you need to be. At the entry stage, the sieve grows ever tighter and education can only do so much. The truth is we don’t manufacture that many really smart people.”

—

Barry Diller <Media Industry Outlook for 2014>

===================

Well.

This is about what is more important in business – business smarts or curiosity. To begin I use a phrase my friends at TopModels refer to as ‘black box thinking.’ It is a combination of the fact in today’s business world:

– Knowledge <or information of shit> is available to anyone with access to a computer <a black box>

– There are an increasing amount of things which are ‘black boxes’ of inner workings <they work … but the majority if is have no clue how they work>

– Great decision making in today’s business world is more often defined by on how good you are at assessing what aspects should be accepted on ‘faith’ <the black box designated aspects> and what aspects need real knowledge & understanding

– It has never been possible to know everything … but in today’s world it is mind numbingly <and humbling so> obvious <which means we HAVE to be dependent upon black boxes>

– Curiosity is not just a business characteristic but also a management tool <an openly curious leader embraces team dialogue & discussion – without relinquishing decision responsibilities>.

All that said. Smart isn’t enough.

In order to weave your way through business issues, organizational issues, people issues and real knowledge issues takes a daunting combination of strength of character, curiosity, strength of self and real leadership <of which confidence, not arrogance, is embraced>.

Yikes.

Now there is a tough combination of characteristics to embody in one person.

Well. That’s why there aren’t many great leaders in today’s business world.

Business is changing. Therefore business leaders <and what is needed> are changing. And I say that to not simply suggest … but rather I will unequivocally state … that many of existing leaders are unqualified to meet these characteristics.

Now.

You may think I am being a little harsh … but read what Barry Diller said in his interview:

By the third hour of your morning, you have some kind of a headache. The reason is you can never master the swiftness of change, innovation, knowledge, etc. It’s very daunting. You really didn’t need to know very much if you were really good, if you had better instincts. We’re in a world now where it’s not enough to be smart. You have to be curious.

Curiosity is rare. That level of intelligence is rare. Probably the further up in a business you are, the less intelligent you need to be. At the entry stage, the sieve grows ever tighter and education can only do so much. The truth is we don’t manufacture that many really smart people.

We really don’t manufacture that many really smart people.

Well. Certainly not many smart business people <although we do manufacture business smart people>. And we need more smart business people these days to face not only the changing face of management but to face the changing face of business challenges. Deloitte reports the following challenges:

Eroding brand loyalty: For the third year in a row, brand loyalty in the food, beverage and household goods product categories has declined, according to the 2013 American Pantry Study. The percentage of “must have” brands – those brands consumers will purchase whether on sale or not – slipped from 33 percent in 2010 to 29 percent in 2012 due to sales on competing national brands, less expensive brands and private label offerings. The threat from private labels remains as many U.S. consumers (88 percent) have found several private labels they feel are just as good as national brands. Moreover, relatively few consumers (27 percent) plan to switch back to national brands from private labels when the economy improves.

– Rethink brand and product portfolio for the new normal: In the 2013 American Pantry Study, 76 percent of U.S. consumers surveyed believed that, “Going through these economic times has caused me to realize which brands I really care about and which ones are less important to me.”

Those brands with the highest loyalty outperform other brands on perceived product performance, experience and trust. As consumers are re-evaluating their brand relationships, consumer companies also need to rethink their product portfolio in light of the widening gap between the affluent and lower-income households. Consumer companies may need to have distinct strategies (e.g., brands, product offering, pricing) to target affluent and lower-income consumers.

– Connection.

The world is now an always-connected world and everyone is more likely to use online and mobile technology across the shopping lifecycle. I don’t care if its storytelling or customer centric or even good ole fashioned “doing business the right way” everything comes down to being agile enough to create relevan connections at the right time with the right message.

Businesses just need to be … well … smarter moving forward.

Therefore their leaders need to be smarter. Smarter in being relentlessly curious and relentlessly adapting <and adopting new knowledge>.

None of the challenges I outlined suggest plans etched in stone.

None of the challenges I outlined suggest finding the necessary knowledge through benchmarking <or any education>.

None of the challenges have a fool proof solution.

I say these things because:

“The sign of intelligence is that you are constantly wondering. Idiots are always dead sure about every damn thing they are doing in their life.”

Vasudev

==================

These challenges mean Business needs a new kind of leader. Smart … but a curious wondering agile smart. One who roams intellectually but has the ability to stand still with regard to vision … and maybe more importantly … on decisions which can, and will, come fro any direction. They will have the ability to be vibrant in repose and still amidst fluidity.

This is a tricky leadership skill. Not for the faint of heart. And, frankly, there will not be a lot of people particularly good at this.

You not only have to demonstrate curiosity but also cultivate a curious culture organizationally. That’s not the tricky part. That’s the easy part.

The hard part is managing a curious culture. Good leaders continuously learn more about their subject and are not afraid to show mistakes or admit that they don’t know it all. They continuously seek to experiment with new ideas.

While this kind of passion is both infectious and memorable … when not managed well … it can lead to an organization that sits around debating rather than doing. Constant curiosity means constant questioning especially in a world where knowledge is fluid and constant and at your fingertips. The new leader will encourage ongoing curiosity and excel at saying ‘stop here’ <no more intellectual exploration>, from this point we make a decision and go ‘do.’

That will take a good leader. Uhm. That will take a smart curious leader.

Anyway.

Smart curious leaders will walk the fine line of balancing decisions & choices <with the knowledge many decisions are “best in this time and place”> while the idiots will always be sure of what to do and where to go.

The smart will always recognize that today’s decision is a moment in time <with a horizon in mind>. And will engender support in the decisions because the followers understand that in a fluid world solid steps matter … and they may not agree today … but believe their leader is curious enough to adapt tomorrow if needed.

Look.

Smarts do matter. As stated upfront … ‘being smart will not be enough.’ The key is ‘not enough.’ Leaders still need to be smart. It’s just they need to be curious … always wondering and learning and asking and evolving and adapting.

Curious as how to spot the idiots?

They will be sure someone already has found the answer <and attempt to copy ‘greatness’> and therefore will always be sure of everything <these are the people who thrive on implementing book “to-do’s”, best practices & whatever the business fad-of-the-day is>.

Remember.

The truth is we don’t manufacture that many really smart people. Uhm. The odds are you are working with an idiot.

“Even as we learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this.

Such violence, such evil is senseless. It’s beyond reason. But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living.

The people we lost in Aurora loved, and they were loved.

They were mothers and fathers. They were husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future, and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled. And if there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited, and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives.

Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”

–

President Obama after Aurora shooting

===

<originally written & posted October 2, 2015 and again on November 5, 2017 and, yet, appears relevant today>

The shooting at the community college in Oregon.

As the president said last night … we seem to be having this conversation far too often in the United States.

Any shooting of innocent people is bad.

Unexplainable shootings seem worse. And because they seem unexplainable we seem to want to go back and reverse engineer information and try and explain the action of someone who does something which seems unexplainable to the everyday schmuck like me <to be clear … reverse engineering is 99% accurate … its predictive engineering that is less accurate>.

And, yet, moments like this make us want to do something … to say something … to solve whatever this something is. All the while serious looking overly somber news people all over the country, as well as an obviously aggravated President Obama, comment on and lament what can only be called a tragic situation. That is all good … but what none of these people seem to nail down is a cohesive strategy to address fundamental reasons for the amount of gun violence that has somehow seeped into the everyday American Life.

Please note I said ‘cohesive’ because the voices shouting seem anything but aligned:

How about we put all the ‘ones’ together and think about a common strategy.

McTague hand drawn relationship on Gun Issue

What do all of these events have in common?

There is a gun.

There is an individual.

There is society <the environment in which the gun and the individual reside>.

Gun control.

I get steamed at both sides on the gun control discussion. Freedom to own a gun does not absolve the freedom from ‘responsible gun ownership.’ On the other side … eliminating guns is just not feasible.

While I certainly don’t have all the political answers I do admit that some aspects of calls for more gun control resonate with me <all the while fully understand that Americans are hardly agreed on the issue with less than 50% wanting stricter gun laws but a majority want better background check>.

And I do know that “a feeding frenzy of new gun legislation is not the answer.” What I do know is that I would rip up all gun control legislation <I believe it is something like over 200 things> and start from scratch.

– I want responsible people who accept the significant responsibility that comes along with owning a gun to be able to own a gun.

It doesn’t seem absurd to demand some level of ‘prove responsibility’ to own a gun. Force registration at police offices or military facilities. Prove you know how to handle a gun <all guns you may have>.

– Any weapon the military uses for military action shouldn’t be in the hands of the everyday citizen. Period. Full stop.

If someone has military experience, then maybe they have earned the right to own an assault like weapon. But I would also make the Military responsible for military trained people who own these guns.

– Ammunition used for hunting or ammunition for non military use.

That’s the only kind of ammunition you can have.

– No more concealed weapons. If you have one, show it.

If I am a non gun owner I want the opportunity to decide to not be near a gun if I want to. If I am a gun owner I want to be fully aware of who else has a gun around me. If I am a police officer I want to be able to see who has what and who doesn’t.

I am sure I am missing something but this whole situation and discussion aggravates my sense so much I leaned in with what I would call the basic common sense thoughts.

The individual <and mental state of mind>.

The flippant “it’s not the gun, it’s the person’ argument is downright silly. Please, PLEASE, everyone just accept it is a symbiotic relationship.

One cannot live without the other.

Next.

The flippant “it’s a mental health issue” … well … suffice it to say “yes” … and then point out if you truly believe we can profile everyone in the entire united states, evaluate them on some set of ‘possibility criteria’ and then track them … well … you are on drugs <which is a completely different issue>.

We cannot institutionalize everyone, or anyone, who has thoughts of suicide, moments of anger at society <or some aspect or group they focus their anger on> or even people with depression and some inclination of some public display of their overall dissatisfaction with Life.

Professional health needs to suck up their pride, and differences, and come up with some basic assessment tool. By the way … has anyone ever heard of ‘social media tracking?’ I can almost guarantee that 90% of all Americans leave an internet footprint … and 99% of the assholes who pick up a gun and shoot some innocent victims certainly do.

I would subjugate one of my privacy freedoms, as a citizen, if the professional health industry said ‘we have a specific assessment tool which will be scanning all online activity which reflects indicators of mental health issues tied with possibility to pick up a gun and kill innocent people.’

C’mon. I have probably met a half dozen social media tracking companies with some technology that tracks words and clicks and even your breathing <it seems> to such a point I am pretty sure they can accurately tell me when I will need to go to the bathroom.

For fuck’s sake. Amazon knows what I want before I want it … certainly we can come up with a tool like this.

Beyond the professionals … there is … well … people … uhm … you & I <and their relationship with potential ‘tragedy creators>. I don’t want to go back to Soviet communism where neighbors reported on neighbors to the KGB … but … for cryin’ out loud … if we simply raised our hands for the people we were 80% sure needed some help … at minimum … they get help … and even better … we cut down on these tragic events by 80%.

To be clear on that last point … perfection may be sought … but will never be attained. Evil does win on occasion <whether we like it or not>.

Society.

Let me begin with …

The picture emerging of Mercer is of a killer who had an interest in mass shootings, having reportedly recently posted on a blog about a gunman who killed two US journalists live on air in August.

He described Vester Flanagan as a man who “wanted the world to see his actions” before adding: “Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

Oh. Let me add …

In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.

Sigh.

I sometimes think we are our own worst enemy. Regardless. Let me tell ya one thing I know for sure … if someone wants to commit suicide and leave a legacy <be in the limelight> that people will remember forever … just do it, or something, in front of today’s media <and then the entertainment industry will run with it from there with TV specials, movies, docudramas, whatever>.

The core of much of the entertainment industry in America – movies, TV shows and, yes, I consider today’s cable news as entertainment <albeit disturbing entertainment> – is based on killing and violence. We glorify the violence & the violent at the same time as we are saddened by it.

In addition … while we depict the violent as ‘evil’ we just as much showcase them as misguided or ‘faults of society’ <not forcing any accountability or personal responsibility for actions on the asshole who actually pulled the trigger>.

The consequences of this is that our society breeds a sense of ‘victim’ even for the purveyor of the tragedy.

Society?

Shit. Well … we just need to be better dammit.

<sigh>

If not us then who?

Look. The champions for gun ownership point out that the Constitution of the country gives people the right to own guns. I would suggest those people think contextually with regard to that thought … at the time America had no standing army … just citizen militia. Everyone was expected to pick up their gun in defense of this new nation we had just created.

Basically, at that time, everyone served in the military.

I would suggest to the people who suggest ‘more guns’ that maybe if we had a mandatory one year military service <or community service if you do not want military> for everyone then everyone would be properly trained as well as properly assessed.

–

note:

The Swiss require part-time military service from each male citizen between the ages of 18 to 34. Women may serve voluntarily. In a nation of eight million people, about 20,000 soldiers a year attend basic training for 18 to 21 weeks

–

Do I truly want that? No.

Do I truly believe it would resolve a shitload of the issues we have now with regard to guns and violence? Yes.

I am all for maintaining our constitutional rights, but, please, PLEASE, could gun rights people think about the context in which the constitution was crafted.

In the end.

I am all for responsible people owning hand guns. That is their choice and, as a country, we deemed that as one of our inviolate rights.

I am all for responsible mental health profiling.

I am all for a responsible society.

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite. It is a complex issue that demands we do something because that is what adults do to protect their children.

I am sure I am missing something and I am relatively sure I will come back and rewrite portions of this but this topic makes me so angry and so sad at the exact same time I just gotta stop for now.

This building’s totally burning down and my, and my heart has slowly dried up.”

=

modest mouse

—

Well.

We all know people who always seem to have drama in their lives. These are the people who always seem to have an endless, and varied, array of crises … one after another … a seemingly endless <created> disaster after disaster … week after week … if not day after day. Unfortunately … I imagine we also know people like this in business.

Driving us crazy having us expend wasted energy chasing after things they are always suggesting are always awry … maybe not a full crisis … but shit that just is not right. Friends are just drama lovers but business people, especially managers, are brutal on effectiveness & morale.

Regardless.

Whether someone makes up a crisis or not … the difficulty, of course, is discerning between real disaster and created disaster.

It is actually with that difficulty <one which any and all of us struggle with> where the core issue resides: discerning how disaster defines you. For if you define yourself <in some aspects> by how you deal with a disaster … and the disaster is not real … well … then is your definition flawed? What I mean by that is:

1. some people are very very good at managing life & business and avoid a shitload of disasters & crises.

They are defined in people’s eyes one way.

2. Some people are very very good at not managing life so that they never avoid disasters and crises.

They are defined in people’s eyes one way.

3. Some people are very very good at simply managing <handling> disasters … as they arise.

They are defined in people’s eyes one way.

I say all that because we can’t simply bunch disasters and people up into one neat bundle. Yet … despite that … .created disaster or real disaster they seem to have something in common. Common? It’s kind of funny … okay interesting … how a disaster or a crisis gets our butts in gear. When faced with a disaster most people … well … make shit happen.

And, in general, we tend to make good shit happen. A disaster seems to <at least … tends to … > bring out the best in us.

Well.

Apparently <per some research> … at least some of us:

The ability to manage your emotions and remain calm under pressure has a direct link to your performance. Research<with like a million people as the base> found that 90% of top performers are skilled at managing their emotions in times of stress in order to remain calm and in control.

Research also clearly shows the havoc stress can have on one’s physical and mental health <such as a Yale study which found that prolonged stress causes degeneration in the area of the brain responsible for self-control>. The tricky thing about stress and the anxiety that comes with it is that it’s an absolutely necessary emotion.

Our brains are wired such that it’s difficult to take action until we feel at least some level of this emotional state. In fact, performance peaks under the heightened activation that comes with moderate levels of stress.

As long as the stress isn’t prolonged, it’s harmless.

Ok.

Regardless … this all means that disasters or crises tends to make shit happen. In fact … it shows us the best we can be <albeit it can also display us at our worst>.

Now. Sometimes our best is enough and sometimes it isn’t … but bring on a disaster or a good crisis and … well … you will find out pretty fast of your best is good enough. That said. Do we really need disasters in life?

<I found this thought in so many writings I almost began to believe it … almost ..>

To be clear … I do not believe that statement is true … but it sure sometimes feels that way watching the news and how many people live their lives and how a shitload of managers conduct themselves in business. However. I do believe disasters drive learning and uncover the real ‘truths.’

In fact … studies show over and over again that we seem to learn new things when disaster strikes and we deal with a crisis. Why? Well. Try this on for size.

–

“Disasters: the mind likes problems because they give you an identity of sorts.”

Eckhard Tolle

–

Eckhardt, the nutjob, also said this:

–

“Disregarding disasters takes the ability to recognize what is false within you.”

Ok. So maybe a disaster can be good because it forces the mind into problem solving mode <kind of like kicking it out of neutral and into a “survival gear”>. Disaster creates stress <insert your thought bubble here: “well … that just stated the obvious”> … uhm … but stress actually improves memory:

=

New research from the University of California, Berkeley, reveals an upside to experiencing moderate levels of stress.

But it also reinforces how important it is to keep stress under control. The study found that the onset of stress entices the brain into growing new cells responsible for improved memory. However, this effect is only seen when stress is intermittent. As soon as the stress continues beyond a few moments into a prolonged state, it suppresses the brain’s ability to develop new cells.

=

But, that said, I imagine the real discussion revolves around what is a real disaster or crisis and what is a created crisis <or what some expert calls – ‘dysfunction-challenge-obstacle within’>.

To be clear. This type of discussion isn’t just about the drama queen/king who walks the high school <or office> hallways … this reaches to the heights of leaders and leadership.

========

For example:

From “Crazy Rhythm” (1997), a memoir by former Nixon White House counsel Leonard Garment

Nixon was much more than ordinarily skilled in the gambler’s arts of patience, nerve, and timing; he was a lover of challenge and the excitement of crisis, an adept, like Houdini, forever surprising skeptics with his ability to escape from the political equivalent of double-barred safes dumped into rivers or burial under six feet of crushing dirt. Nixon—his ambitions lofty, his style lumpen—in the end trumped his enemies. And from this, for all his careful avoidance of reminders of the “Old Nixon” during his final twenty years of disciplined self-rehabilitation, he surely derived his greatest, most savage satisfaction.

Without Watergate, Nixon would likely have finished his term, floundered around as a depressed man in search of a crisis, and died earlier than he did. As it was, he took up the supreme struggle of his political life and fought, won, and wrote about it time and again, until he was finally buried with great public honor.

–

Well. This implies that escaping the inevitable changes that are demanded from facing disasters creates an odd dichotomy of attitudes and energy — the clashing of ones who seek to engage their ‘gambling skills’ versus the ones who seek to avoid the inevitable change <not just the outcomes> associated with disasters.

Suffice it to say that most of us do not embrace change. If anything … we go out of our way to avoid it. A normal reaction is to move away from the new and unfamiliar. I say that because disasters force change. They force action.

And typically they force the change in a boundaried existence – limited time and space <so you can’t avoid it>.

Oh.

As for that ‘engage their gambler skill’? We should note that unlike disaster, success is not a good teacher. Whoa. So disaster can be a good teacher <honing some thinking & learning skills> and success isn’t <creates a false sense of skill set>.

That thought may make you rethink buying that next “how do I learn the things of successful businesses/people” book. Why is success such a poor teacher? After success you typically give yourself a pat on your back and celebrate.

Oh. And start to be complacent <complacency is a wonderful strategy for failure or a disaster>.

On the other hand … disaster is good for learning because we start to learn better when things get a little rough. There is no complacency <because you are trying to survive> and we normally make the most important decision after setbacks and failures. The pain or disappointment of failure provides feedback and is an oddly good teacher that will provide us with strong reflective education.

—

“Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t lose.”

Bill Gates

—

To be clear … success just doesn’t seduce smart people … it seduces all people.

Now.

To be fair.

I am not aware of anyone who has a 100% success rate in life <… well … I imagine it depends on how you define success>. Success is driven by perspective … and it is actually perspective that makes good disaster managers approach a crisis differently than the majority of us. Say what? Yup. They have a tendency to reframe their perspective.

And that ability is the reason why we like having these types of people around us … because the depth of a disaster is skewed by our perception of events. They know how to actually control perceptions <and therefore manage some attitudes>. Please note … these people do not seek disasters they simply are good in a disaster/crisis.

Anyway.

Any crisis is stressful <good manager around or not>. It’s easy to think that unrealistic deadlines, unforgiving bosses, and out-of-control traffic are the reasons we’re so stressed all the time. They are not … the stress is … well … self inflicted and not externally inflicted. Simplistically … more often than not you can’t control your circumstances but you can control how you respond to them. So before you spend too much time dwelling on something you should take a minute to put the situation in perspective.

If you aren’t sure when you need to do this, try looking for clues that your anxiety may not be proportional to the stressor <the asshole screaming ‘disaster’>. If you <or the screamer> are thinking in broad, sweeping statements such as “everything is going wrong” or “nothing will work out” I would suggest you need to reframe the situation in a little reality.

A great way to correct this unproductive thought pattern is to list the specific things that actually are going wrong or not working out. Most likely you will come up with just some things—not everything—and the scope of these stressors will look much more limited than it initially appeared.

Success seduces you into believing you are better than you are … failure reminds you that you aren’t better than you thought <as long as you don’t constantly blame everyone else for the failure>. Let’s call this in today’s post as “false gambler skill.’ This suggests that many of the self proclaimed ‘good in crisis people’ are the ones who define themselves by the disasters … and have a false sense of success from disasters <no wonder we hate these people in management>.

“Each success only buys an admission ticket to a more difficult problem.”

–

Henry Kissinger

This creates an interesting dynamic to disasters and Life. Because the bottom line for people is we like to win <or have success>. I imagine at some point it can become an addiction <hence this whole thought of creating disasters to solve – leading to create successes>. And this creates a corollary attitude. “I don’t lose.”

The tricky part about disasters is that someone typically loses. And everyone has a right to win <so it’s not like you – the proverbial you – has the corner on winning>.

And that is the sneaky bad side of disasters … they increase the emphasis on trying to win. But at some point you need to remember that it isn’t everything.

There is value in “a loss.” And that, my friends, is extremely difficult when you think of his from a ‘disaster’ perspective where most times you are just doing what you believe you need to do to survive. Yes. There is value in doing your best even if your best doesn’t translate into a win. But … whoa … this is a frickin’ disaster we are talking about <insert some exclamation points here>.

So.

That is common sense.

Uh oh.

But that ignores “personal” <self-esteem, peer/society pressure, societal expectations, etc.>. Because the transition between “I want to win therefore I won’t lose.” To “I lost.” THAT is a humdinger of a personal transition.

Worse?

When winning is familiar <like … you win a lot … often enough that a part of you kind of expects to win>. Winning is addictive. It seduces you on a number of levels. Even the suggestion of “what if I lose?” has become a huge issue in self-help diatribes in that “you need to think like a winner to be a winner.” It is frowned upon to be reflective upon losing.

I say all this because <1> disasters trigger survival instincts in which we tend t overlook “how you win” & associate “lose” with dying, <2> if you live Life managing disasters … ‘losing’ can seem like a disaster in and of itself.

And there begets the victory of soul and character even in losing within a crisis.

Finding victory in a loss within a disaster scenario is all about character. Not being too proud to even think about those things as well as accept loss. To find victory in the attempt is actually the thought. Survival, in & of itslef, can be viewed as a win.

In an odd way. Disasters themselves are seductive. Especially if you successfully navigate them.

Look.

Disaster or non disaster … don’t be seduced by success. Certainly you should celebrate it. Success deserves recognition. But more importantly remember something … in a race of 1000 people only one “wins” in the truest sense but I imagine that another 899 won in another way that made them feel pretty darn good and kept on going <and then there are 100 or so who just cannot accept ‘losing’ and are just plain losers>.

So.

Getting back to the main point of this.

Does this mean we should actually be seeking disaster <with the right mindset>?

Nope.

There is enough adversity in life & business that comes naturally … trust me … disasters <of any and all sizes> will appear at one time or another.

Just remember that most events in life, whether you call them a disaster or not, follow the basic cycle of “problem/situation/disaster – action – result”. I am tempted to call this a Life truth <but someone smarter than I will probably send me a note suggesting some exceptions>.

But suffice it to say that I struggle to find many actions without problems. And results are consequences of actions.

It doesn’t really matter <in this case> if the problems themselves may be imagined or real, because they are what we perceive and act on. Theoretically at no point in time do we seem to run out of problems that require solving. There is a seemingly endless array of things to worry about, things to pursue, things that are stopping us from pursuing … and things we regret <if we elect to regret them>.

Well. If you buy into that thought then that means we continuously engage in some action which is generating some outcome which in turn regenerates some new problem/situation/disaster.

Whew.

That is a painful thought. Maybe I should say … this is exactly how someone who lives, and thrives, on disasters thinks <I am not one … and I can honestly say it is painful putting myself in their shoes just to be able to write this>.

Some people might enjoy problem solving for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Others obsess with results, and their “ends” justify their “means”.

Yet others simply place the highest emphasis on action.

Each of these has its rewards.

Regardless. I tend to believe we just have to accept that Life is a series of disasters <oops … lessons>. Ignore that thought at your own peril … because ignorance is rarely bliss.

Always be conscious about what is happening to you and around you and try and recognize that disasters are simply lessons in the making. And these lessons are inevitably presented to you over and over … until you learn your lessons.

My point on this lesson thing?

You can either take the responsibility to take charge or be a victim of disaster. And there in lies the difference between those who define themselves by disaster and those who accept disasters as part of Life. The former make their disasters more important than the typically are and the latter manage disasters as stepping stones in Life.

Ok.

Let me end on a positive <versus disaster> but related to lessons of disasters.

I read somewhere that pleasure is always derived from something outside you … whereas joy arises from within. I like that thought. And, therefore, in seeking a substitute for joy … the mind will seek salvation or fulfillment through pleasure … or some external stimulation. Therein lies the root of everyone seeking to define themselves through disasters. It is a warped way to find pleasure.

Well.

We can save these people. We can save them if you understand the joy and pleasure equation … and help someone find ‘joy’ <however it may be defined>.

==

“There will never be a shortage of disasters, there will always be people who need to be rescued. And there will never ever be enough people to save them all.”

==

Some people need rescuing again and again. And some people drown over a full lifetime.

Life is full of disasters … real and unreal.

I don’t think anyone needs one to be defined as a part of Life … but they are simply part of Life whether you want, or need, them and therefore play a role in who and what you are. Frankly … where disasters truly show their true colors is not in our skills or some skill set you can try and claim … but instead it when we have survived the trial by fire where our real self gets to show itself. That’s where you get to show who you are. This is … well … character

Anyway.

I imagine … as with anything in your life … it is what you make of it. We don’t get defined by disasters but disasters can often define who you will be. Therein lies one of the great paradox in Life. <sigh> And I imagine because it is a paradox some people will enhance the personal drama to create some self worth while others will simply accept the challenge of disasters as … well … something called “Life.”

For the latter, well, just see the gobs of information and quotes online with regard to “if you aren’t moving forward you are standing still” … “don’t look back or you’ll miss what is in front of you” … “don’t look back you are not going that way” or some crap like that.

I would note we see all that … as if no one knows that movement, and progress, is good. But. that is the ‘forward progress theory’ business.

That said.

The bravest thing you can do is to not look back. Why do I say ‘brave’? We make it really hard to not look back. Really hard. Day in and day out everything around you pounds on you for what did you learn and how are you applying it and ‘if you don’t know that then how can you be sure that is the right thing to do?” … crap like that.

Okay.

Semi useful thinking crap like that.

But what it really means is that anyone truly desiring to move forward, intent on progress, keeps getting dragged back time and again to the past.

What, or who, is the main culprit of this almost unhealthy relationship with the past?

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to make the same mistakes.”

Christalmighty.“Doomed.”

No wonder people afraid of some risk or hesitate to move forward keep looking backwards. Doom is never a particularly desirable objective if you care about your career <or anything for that matter>.

The ‘doomed’ aspect <which older business people toss around like confetti in meetings> means we are almost demanded to not only invest energy in the past but, in some cases, encouraged to hold on to past learnings with ragged claws. That said … I will go back to the bravery aspect because I could argue the truest bravery, in this sense, resides in two places:

Not looking back once you have decided to move forward.

Not looking back when you purposefully stand still.

Yeah.

First. There are actually times to just go. Go and do. Maybe not ‘go’ as meant by leaning on instincts <I called it ‘decision faking by intuition‘ but research tends to show instincts are less important than experience> but lean on your experience to guide you through the context of your progress. The truth is that the past cannot show you all the shit you need to know as you move forward. It only shows aspects of shit you should be aware of. And, worse, the past has nasty habit of not encouraging you to reflect on the context of all the aspects just the aspects themselves. Therefore history is truly only important in parts and not the whole.

You have to grab the scraps of what you need from the past and create a new whole in moving forward. And that is where bravery steps up to the plate. More often than not you are creating a new whole … a slightly different version of what was. Yeah. That is different than the past <it s actually something new>. Yeah. Everyone is actually a creator, a discoverer … albeit we don’t like to think about that. While this point is a generalization … if you know your shit … once you have decided to go … to move forward … don’t look back. Bravely face the new world ahead.

Yeah.

Second. There are actually times to stop. Stand still. Even amidst activity. Even amidst a crowd which seems like it is moving forward <albeit sometimes all you see is the movement>.

Stillness, strategic stillness, is possibly one of the scariest things anyone can ever do. When everyone and everything is moving you feel like you are ding something wrong in standing still. And, yet, by purposefully doing so you may be adding to the progress rather than taking away from it.

Here is what I know about purposefully standing still.

You have to accept the fact you are offering the type of energy that no matter where you are and no matter that you are still & not moving you are actually adding value to the space and time and progress to that which is around you. I can promise you that this takes a version of bravery.

Anyway.

Forward progress is difficult. Difficult in the mind <attitudes> and even in practice <behavior>. I could argue that it is so difficult because our natural instinct is to try and use the past to define what the future will look like. That is slightly crazy when you think about it. While the arc of time dictates the future will most likely replicate the past … well … that is the arc and not the details. It’s kind of like discussing strategy versus tactics. The strategy may remain the same or similar, but the tactics will vary in the context of time & situation.

Forward progress does take some bravery … some courage. Mostly because the future will always contain something you have never seen before or faced before. In other words … it will not be the same as it was.

I don’t think I am particularly brave but I certainly don’t look back once I decide to go … and I have no qualms with standing still amidst movement. I tend to believe it is not bravery but rather experience.

Ah.

Experience.

Maybe you need to be brave to gain useful experience?

Ok.

That’s another post for another day ……..

===================

“Sometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, ‘So what’.

“You aren’t advertising to a standing army; you are advertising to a moving parade.”

—

David Ogilvy

===============

“One can resist the invasion of an army but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas.”

—

Victor Hugo

===============

“The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying.”

–

David Ogilvy

==============

So.

Today I want to take a moment and comment on business responsibility and their choices with regard to what they say, or do not say, in advertising.

I do so because in today’s heightened sense of politicism and divisive rhetoric a shitload of people are making noise about “advertising should honor the event and not use it to make a political statement” or “I don’t want to know what they think I just want to by their product.”

I am most likely in the minority within the marketing community on this issue but … that is nuts to me. It is nuts for a coupe of reasons – first captures the idea that business is a fabric of society whether they like it or not &, second, choices offer clarity to people & people love clarity <as well as hate … and that is good>. The first is about accepting some responsibility and the second is, frankly, self interest.

Responsibility <& Fabric of Society>.

If not then … then when?

Uhm.

If not me … then who?

I fully understand there are consequences & repercussions for your actions. But let me take a couple minute to talk about that ‘actions’ part. Far too often this discussion devolves into a simplistic binary choice – an ‘either/or’ choice.

You stand for this therefore you hate that. In other words you cannot be pro-choice and yet respectful or understanding of pro-life … you cannot desire stronger immigration rules and still be accepting of immigrants … you cannot believe in your religion and still accept that how others worship is good & worthy.

Let’s face it.

Life, in most cases , is not some simplistic binary choice. You can, and should, believe in something and yet still can, and should, be accepting and respectful of others views. To be clear … to be successful in this endeavor we would not only need to embrace respect but also assume that most people, let’s say maybe 99% of people, do the best they can and make the best decisions they can <no matter how flawed those decisions may look in our eyes>.

Which leads me back to business and advertising.

I believe advertising, in general, should always seek to highlight the opportunity for us to see the better, or best, version of who and what we are. That is responsibility. And that is where I believe business marketing and advertising should not fear speaking out. And … I would point out … what I am suggesting is not political nor is it divisive but rather it is contributing to a better society. It is not stating what you believe is wrong … but rather that standing up and speaking out for what you believe is right. Companies make statements all the time. Maybe they do more vocally internally but part of any good organization is a sense of what they believe is right, versus wrong, and how they may define integrity & values.

Frankly. We need more companies standing up and vocalizing this publicly.

This is not about saying “you are wrong for believing this” or “we do not agree with you” but rather more about normalizing what is right.

Look.

This is not about free speech or any political motivation, per se, but it is about how business, and work life, is an important part of the societal fabric of who and what we are and how and what we think.

This also means a business has to slide around the infamous ‘political correctness’ obstacle.

In my eyes … if you want to discuss how political correctness has gone awry … it would be in the business world. Political correctness scared businesses from assuming a role they had gladly played in the past.

It wasn’t too long ago that business played a significant role in shaping society. As Peter Drucker pointed out, back in the early 1990’s, something he discussed called “no more salvation by society” … a time in which businesses understood that work made up a significant portion of people’s lives and therefore they had some responsibility to investing in the fabric of society. As time and views have shifted toward ‘making a dollar’ and profits … the work place became less and less an extension of society but rather simply ‘a place to work and gain a paycheck’.

What an empty thought that is.

So empty that when meetings occurred to discuss ‘risk in their advertising’, and ‘what should we say’, was discussed … ‘social responsibility’ sat in the corner and had nothing to defend it … and businesses became afraid to make a stand on what they believed was good for society <and simply focused on ‘brand differentiation’ and ‘branding’ … in other words … I am gonna just worry about me and let you worry about you>.

Well.

This is not only sad … but wrong.

It is wrong for 2 reasons:

Our work lives, like it or not, represent a significant portion of our lives … not just in terms of sheer hours but also in terms of thinking we are exposed to, accepted behavior and general attitudes on what is right & what is wrong. For a business to avoid that ‘fabric of society’ responsibility is shameful. And … yeah … advertising is the most visible expression should they actually accept the responsibility.

Brand differentiation rarely resides in some obtuse technical or product differentiation but rather in character & personality. Some intrinsic motivator which compels a consumer to find an emotional connection with you & your brand. Making a choice to become part of the fabric of society permits people to allow you o become part of the fabric of their Life.

Ok.

Yeah. That said. I go back to the beginning … yeah … there are absolutely consequences for your actions. But that is what business positioning is really all about. Distinctness and forcing people to think … think about you as a company, think about what you are offering … and thinking about how they feel about you, your message … and themselves.

That is what business positioning and marketing and advertising, at its core, is all about. We far too often dumb it down into some ‘selling shit’ sound bite but … well … that is dumb. Dumb?

Choices, “edges” & Clarity <Self Interest>.

I talk with a shitload of business people … not about advertising or marketing per se … but rather about simply being successful in the marketplace.

I focus on distinction and not differentiation.

I focus on worrying about “me” and what I want to say rather than finding some elusive, and most likely nonexistent, ‘white space’ in some industry to shape what I ‘should say.’

I focus on saying the right things and doing it the right way and suggesting that if you tell people the right way to think about things that eventually people will see you as ‘right’ rather than ‘wrong.’

Yes. I know. People will debate with me and, to be fair, this whole discussion wanders along the razor thin line of inclusionary versus exclusionary. If your message is effective, concise and clear, it will absolutely be inclusionary for those who see themselves in what you have to say and offer … and potentially exclusionary to others at exactly the same time.

However, when done well, a business’s advertising captures the brand’s distinctness <which is a campfire to those who want to be included> and offers a better version of people <so that people do not dislike you … they imply think ‘they are not for me’>. I would argue that IS the ultimate clarity & distinctness & differentiation.

Look. To do what I am suggesting a business has to set political correctness off to the side, not think about politics at all … and simply think about … well … people. The people who they desire to try their products and services and how they would like to showcase those people as the best version of themselves. Maybe show them the destination mentally or maybe even share the path. It doesn’t matter … it is intended to connect with some better version that resides in everyone of us. And then after thinking about all that … they have to place the burden of responsibility upon their shoulders, open the door and stride out into the world to share it with people.

In business we have a responsibility.

Yes.

Even in the advertising and marketing business there is an almost overwhelming responsibility <which far too many people are not willing to accept this burden> beyond simply selling stuff.

——

“All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or we can help lift it onto a higher level.”

==

Bill Bernbach

——-

“We are so busy measuring public opinion that we forget we can mold it. We are so busy listening to statistics we forget we can create them.”

==

Bill Bernbach

——-

It is a much easier burden to simply focus on profit and dollars — it is a straightforward black & white responsibility. Well. I would suggest to any business person reading this that … well … responsibility is responsibility. All responsibility is only as overwhelming or ‘whelming’ a you make it.

And if you do not accept your responsibility to tell the truth as excitingly and convincingly as you possibly can … lies will win … and society will end up being shaped that way. If you choose to vulgarize the society or brutalize it … or even ignore it <all under the guise of ‘understanding what the consumer wants’> … society will lose.

To be clear.

I do not despair when I look at business in today’s world … or even marketing & advertising behavior <although it often pains me how often business passes on opportunities to be distinct out of what can only be ‘fear’>.

But I do get aggravated. Ok. No. I get angry.

I get angry that we are not accepting the responsibility.

I get angry that we are not strong enough to accept the burden.

I get angry that many do not even presume the responsibility is within their purview.

Business, whether you like it or not, shapes society.

What we do matters.

Selling stuff may matter to our bottom line and the existence of our business but we cannot ignore that a thriving business actually contributes to a greater good — the existence of a healthy society.

I could argue that while selling stuff is important that what really matters is the shaping of attitudes <which ultimately shapes behavior>.

Far too often, by simply focusing on ‘selling stuff’, the byproduct of our ignoring the larger responsibility is that we end up brutalizing society in some form or fashion. Am I suggesting that selling stuff or being profitable isn’t important? Of course not.

All I am suggesting is that how you sell stuff and be profitable matters.

And that you have a responsibility in how you do what you do.

Because how you do things impacts society.

It shapes society. It can vulgarize or brutalize … or invigorate and instill good.

How you do things has a power way beyond simply you or what you do in that moment.

How you do things is a pebble dropping into a pond.

Accepting the responsibility assumes you are neither impotent nor harmless.

——-

“Advertising is far from impotent or harmless; it is not a mere mirror image. Its power is real, and on the brink of a great increase. Not the power to brainwash overnight, but the power to create subtle and real change.

The power to prevail.”

==

Eric Clark, The Want Makers: Inside the World of Advertising, 1988

——

Your responsibility in business is sometimes subtle … but always real. I worry that business people everywhere, but in particular advertising & marketing, have become so focused on getting shit done and ‘attaining the bottom line’ that they have forgotten the responsibility.

I worry that business people worry so much about politics and ‘political correctness’ they have forgotten that when good people remain silent … the only one who wins is bad.

I ask everyone visiting today to think about what the thinking I offered today. This isn’t about causes. This isn’t about social responsibility <or the welfare of people>. This is about understanding that what you do impacts people. This is about whether you, as business people, accept the burden of responsibility to help shape a society which is a reflection of the best versions of who and what we are.

Well.

In my eyes … if I am going to spend money on some advertisement and place my ad on some show where a gazillion people will see it … I am going to use my moment in the spotlight to aim for the best version of myself that I can. And aim to help people see the best version that they can be.

Will that piss some people off? Sure.

Does that make me wrong to try and meet that objective? No.

Silence is not an option. When you have the podium and he opportunity to speak … you accept the burden of responsibility and try and ‘lift society to a higher level.’

With all this talk about “content marketing” and “storytelling” I think it is important we discuss … well … boredom. And I don’t mean “you need to entertain” bullshit … I simply mean boredom. That said. Far too often I think we confuse a lack of attention, attention spans, or attention in general, with a hatred of boredom. I imagine I could say that this is simply about discussing two sides of the same coin.

One side is boredom.

One side is attention span.

Regardless of my imaginary coin … attention spans, in general, are certainly one of the main “topic du jours” a shitload of people, and ‘experts’, pontificate on espousing on “a generation borne of short attention spans” <using the infamous … “we have attention spans of a goldfish” — note: we do not …>. I have always said we do not have significantly shorter attention spans today than we have had in the past and that technology isn’t make us a society with an attention deficit <although technology does have other affects>.

That said … why doesn’t anyone ever discuss WHY our attention wavers?

Sure.

Many people, I included, have discussed relevance matters in gaining attention and maintaining attention and many people, I included, have discussed how interest and attention are inextricably linked … but why don’t we just simply talk about boredom?

Because if I am bored I will not pay attention.

Shit.

If a goldfish is bored, they will not pay attention.

Shit.

If you are bored enough <as the chart “structure of boredom” suggests you attain “demonic boredom” – this is the type of boredom which can make you say stupid things out loud>

Anyway.

Here is the flipside of the coin.

If you can keep me from being bored? You have my attention.

Personally … I hate being bored. Some people confuse this with a lack of ability to pay attention. They are wrong. People have my undivided attention and focus … if I am not bored with what is being said or shown.

I don’t think I am particularly unique in this.

I do know because of my hatred of boredom that I have quasi-mastered the art of ‘surface attention.’Surface attention?

What this is … is … well … let’s say you are in a meeting. And some bonehead is demanding you sit through a 75 page PowerPoint presentation.

I can guarantee you that I am gonna feel some hate <some boredom> within those 75 pages <and the 75+ words that must be said accompanying every page>. But that hate will not keep me from perking up on … well … say … page 51 where … well … you aren’t boring me.

And I have to admit. It is good that I have mastered this particular skill because F. Scott and I have something in common … I am a slave to my hatred of boredom.

Because outside of a meeting or some environment constricting my ability to flee my boredom … not only do I not pay attention but I move on. I actually will get away, if not actually flee, from boredom. I hate being bored so much I have been chastised for being rude <and sometimes it can also mistakenly be construed as some version of ‘self superiority’>.

I am neither rude nor do I believe I am smarter, or superior or better in any way … I am simply a slave to my hatred of boredom. In fact … as a parallel point … I will actively search out ‘non-boring.’ So … its not like I don’t want to hear what people have to say and i actually highly value other’s opinions, especially of they are contrarian views., but just as i am active n my pursuit for non-boredom i am also quite active in avoiding, and fleeing, actual boredom.

Maybe I don’t handle it as well as many other people but, once again, I just don’t think I am that unique. Given the opportunity I believe most of us schmucks would haul ass when bored by someone or something. In most cases it isn’t rooted in any thought that someone is ‘dumb’ or ‘an asshole/asshat’ … we are just fucking bored. I imagine my real point <and this would be great advice to professional marketers> is … well … if you want my attention don’t bore me.

Now.

This doesn’t mean ‘entertain me’ or ‘make me laugh’ or … well … any simplistic tripe many experts spout. Don’t overthink it. There is no formula. And there is no ‘one thing’ to do.

Just don’t bore me.

I don’t care how you do it.

You can engage me intellectually.

You can engage me by … well … being engaging.

You can engage me by making me smile.

You can engage me by tapping into my inner altruism.

You can engage me by tapping into my sense of responsibility.

The list of how to engage someone is relatively infinite.

But one thing circumvents the infinite list of possibilities … boredom.

I am a slave to my hatred of boredom.

And while I may hate boredom a little more than the average everyday schmuck … in general … I tend to believe most everyone hates being bored.

Well.

There is some professional advice.

Don’t be boring and don’t bore people you have an interest in communicating with.

“When we get impatient because something is taking too long, we should remember that Life waits on us a thousand times more than we wait on Life.”

―

Laura Teresa Marquez

==============

You are doing average !!!<said with enthusiasm>.

Uhm

When is the last time someone ever said ‘average’ enthusiastically? <never>

And, yet, here is a Life truth – the majority of life and things we do is average. Statistically it has to <that is why it is called the average>.

Not everything can be shit bad and not everything can be spectacularly spectacular.

An average means that … well … on average this is what happens.

Well.

If that is true … that explains why we are always so impatient for spectacular things to take place.

Shit.

That explains why we are always so dissatisfied in Life <or … let’s say “disappointed more often than we would like”>. Because unless your life is a series of spectacular failures and spectacular wins <where you are most likely an alcoholic or drug addict trying to deal with the massive swings … or some insanely irresponsible individual with no responsibilities> you are most likely dwelling in the … well … average daily behavior space.

Now.

Let me say what everyone has to be thinking “that thought sucks” <and Bruce sucks for pointing it out>.

Yeah.

It does suck.

It sucks because the last thing anyone wants to be is average and it sucks even more … if it is actually true … that most of our lives hover around average <with moments of spectacular bad and moments of spectacular good>.

Even worse?

If it is true … society, business and … well … everyone else … measures average not as acceptable <or the norm> but rather boring, unexceptional or ‘a loser.’ Pretty much we have pounded into our heads that average is bad and we should always be seeking to be better than average – on everything <projects, games, speaking, etc.>.

Uh oh.

And, yet, average is pretty much where everything resides.

Therefore … on an average day what you do <which is statistically more than likely to be average> will be less than satisfactory to everyone else around you.

Once again … this whole discussion sucks.

It sucks because if everything we do meanders around average most of the time and we think about everything desiring to be anything but average … we are doomed to be spectacularly consistently disappointed <if not unhappy> … well … on average throughout life.

Yikes.

I’m getting depressed just writing this.

Ok.

Here is how I deal with this thought.

Average is the cost of doing business … the business called Life.

Do average and several things occur:

1. You are surviving. Yeah. That may sound like a low bar but let me suggest that if you don’t survive you don’t even have the opportunity to do more average e shit let alone anything more than average.

Survival is an excellent objective.

2. You put yourself in position for the occasional spectacular. Let me be clear … average is not mediocrity <which is a slippery slope incredibly difficult to get off of>.

Average is something completely different.

Average can actually be quite a good thing … it’s just Life without any sparkle or bells & whistles. Therefore … average is not settling it is rather the foundation we all seem to build for ourselves to maintain a good and healthy life. And if it is a foundation … well … you can build on it. Without average you cannot attain the spectacular … at least the spectacular good.

3. Average teaches patience and consistency and character. If you can ignore all the blowhards yelling at you for accepting average you will notice that pretty much anyone can attain spectacularly bad <that is easy>.

And you will notice that you will achieve some spectacular goods on occasion.

You will notice that an average Life is one well lived on a consistent basis with more good than bad and more spectacular on the good side than spectacular on the bad.

Average teaches you character in that you recognize that centering your Life around you is a significantly easier Life to live than one that tries to center itself around what others say they expect or desire or value.

Look.

Running about average isn’t a bad thing. It shouldn’t be scoffed at or sneered at or diminished. Running about average means you recognize that Life is a marathon and not a sprint.

In fact … running about average means that … well … that is pretty much what most of us are doing every day at any given point. So, accept the fact most of what you do is average … and that is not just okay it is actually good.

============ POSTSCRIPT ==========

About average.

I am a hope guy & I have always espoused being the best you can be. That said. In my career I have talked with people from rural Appalachia & Kentucky, urban NYC & Dallas & San Francisco, visited farms in Iowa, NC & Texas, homes in at least 25 different states and heard just about every average person you can think of talk about their life.

I say that because most of the consultants and business people I know live in rarified air where discussing leadership thru Hope & “doing great things” is the norm. Most people want to be a little bit better, have a little bit better & see things a little bit better in the future, but know they live average lives … and they are actually okay with that. They truly represent the good in the average American. I counsel my friends in our rarified air to think of ways to talk about being average, and average lives, in more positive ways because, well, it relates more often to the average person.

“People have forgotten this truth,” the fox said. “But you mustn’t forget it. You become responsible forever for what you’ve tamed.”

—–

The Little Prince

===============

“I cannot play with you,” the fox replies. “I am not tamed.”

“What does that mean – to tame?”

“It means to establish ties. To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world…please, tame me!”

“I want to, very much,” the Little Prince replied, “but I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand.”

“One only understands the things that one tames,” the fox said.

==============

Ok.

Some people aren’t going to like the way I am going to discuss Leadership. Some people will not like the implication behind the word “tame” with regard to employees. Those some people should read before they dismiss the thought. t may just offer a different way of thinking about the responsibility of leadership.

Leaders have a tough job in that you manage skills, people, personalities & overall organizational purpose.

We call it managing, but in reality it is taming. You tame the independent wildness and tame the ability & potential so you can understand it, and it can understand itself, so that eventually there is a mutual progress to play the game as well as it can be played.

Please note that nowhere in there have I suggested “blind obedience.” Taming, in this view, is reaching true understanding so that real personal growth occurs.

That said … in that metaphorical expression of leadership … you own what you tame.

I say that because far too often we leaders & managers view management as something we do for the benefit of the organization and, hopefully, the benefit of the people … but we ‘own’ no responsibility for the individual in terms of actions or who they become — and certainly not ‘forever.’

Some of us view ourselves as shapers in some form or fashion but lean back against the belief we only dent the surface of who and what the person is and will become. We view what we do as possibly taming but within the purview of just a chapter in their lives … not an entire story.

In some ways we do this simply as an act of self-survival. The truth is that investing too much personally into your business; the organization and the employees can … well … kill you.

Okay.

Maybe not literally kill you … but figuratively it can become a daily strain on your psychological health. Many of us, out of pragmatism, eye our relationship with employees as a story with a finite end – be it positive, sad, joyful, disappointing or ambiguous – but it is, in reality, just the end of a chapter.

The story keeps going. Ours and theirs.

And while we may represent only a chapter in a larger narrative … well … we own what we tame. This is an inclusive way of leading & managing. You include yourself in someone’s Life and … well … you own what part you tame.

Uhm.

Of course … this can also swing to the opposite more dangerous side – an exclusive leadership side. This is ‘ownership’, not owning, of what you tame. You don’t become part of them you simply offer a voice to them – I sometimes call this ‘pack mentality leadership’.

These are the leaders who say “on my team <or in other words “mine”> forever.” It is possessive in a non productive way.

“Leave and my wrath is upon you.”

That eader’s attitude? “Not want to be tamed by me? you are “un” whatever it is I stand for.” And this is where exclusive leadership truly rears its ugly head.

There is little vision, there is a lot of ‘features’ in the offering <more money, more jobs, more titles, more wins, more whatever> and therefore the incentives do the work and not any persuasive direction or vision. The ‘pack attitude’ is a means to an end and a vision in and of itself.

—-

“Managers tend to use compensation as a crutch. After all, it is far easier to design an incentive system that will do management’s work than it is to articulate a direction persuasively, develop agreement about goals and problems, and confront difficulties when they arise.”

Michael Beer, Harvard professor of business administration

—–

The features, the actions & behavior of those who belong on this team, are how they speak of unity and teamwork, i.e., “everyone should act this way … but we are the ones who do.”

Or how about this?

“The only important thing is the unification of the people – because the other people don’t mean anything.” <Trump used these words once awhile back> In other words … the only people who truly count are the ones who are in this leader’s team.

Even worse? They use the ‘us versus them’ polarization as a means to suggest “team personality & character” all the while these types of leaders actually do it to create their own power structure. They don’t desire to include anyone else nor do they tend to reach out to others <albeit they make some inclusive noises on occasion> they desire to build a construct where people ask to join <because they should, of course, have to ask> and are not asked to join.

“Excluding leader types” love the ‘us versus them’ aspect. They love being derided and they love opposition. All these things do is solidify the team’s belief they are different & better & know more than the others. The team becomes what represents what is real & right and the leader controls what is real & right. The leader’s people are truly the only people that count and the leader hasn’t tamed ability but rather attitude.

And here is where the ownership of what you tamed hits a dangerous spot.

This leader has tamed an attitude but feels little ownership of the people themselves. Therefore should the leader decide to move on or get tired of whatever it is they are doing at the moment they feel no remorse in leaving people behind <who still harbor the attitude he/she tamed>.

The pack remains, the pack mentality still seethes, but the pack leader is no longer there.

Anyway.

Let me close with some thoughts.

I think it is a healthy thought for every manager & leader to ponder ‘you own what you tame.’ Leadership and leading is never easy and I have the scars to show to prove it.

I found it naturally tempting to build a quasi-pack mentality in my groups as a younger leader & manager. I was, and have always been, a more aggressive business person – I am not fond of status quo and not particularly fond of ‘the safe road.’

I can absolutely state that as a manager you can feed off of the ‘pack mentality’ attitude. It is exhilarating and almost like a drug … and maybe more dangerous … it can feed into a self-belief aspect that can edge upon arrogance and obliviousness to the greater good.

I don’t think I ever fell off the cliff on this but I certainly got a glimpse of the edge. As I gained more experience I saw the danger in doing so <to my team members, to my organization & to myself> and sought to find some balance.

Just remember.

You can tame your people’s ability & attitude in an inclusive & “unearthing skill & talent” way and they, and you, will benefit at the time and in the future <whether you are still working together or not>.